The objectivity of the mainstream news media had been in decline for decades when, in 2008, gasping its last breath, it gave itself into the soothing arms of death. As it stands today, it is nothing more than an institutionalized, 24/7, year-round campaign for Democratic politicians.
Although objectivity has perished, we are now beginning to see also the pretense of objectivity gradually wither away, with established and highly acclaimed news sources doing a slow, unashamed reveal of their true motives.
We saw an example of this when, back in October of last year, Politico ran an article that any objective news editor would have laughed the writer out of his office for writing and said, "Come back to me when you have a story."
According to Politico, two women back in the 1990s, when Herman Cain was head of the National Restaurant Association, complained of sexual harassment. The women were conveniently unnamed, and the details and extent of the harassment were withheld, other than the vague accusation that Cain made some suggestive “hand gesture.” The National Restaurant Association allegedly settled out of court, offering each woman an unspecified five-figure sum of money.
And Politico actually ran the story. They failed to answer four of the six essential questions of journalism: Who, What, Why, and How. The two they did answer were Where (at the National Restaurant Association) and When (in the 1990s). But they wanted us simply to trust everything else they reported . . . details be damned. Who needs details, after all? It’s only journalism.
This episode showed a willingness of the news media to reveal their lack of objectivity for the sake of tearing down a man who was a credible threat to Obama and to the Democrats' economic enslavement of 90+ percent of the black voting population.
Now we come to Gawker, a left-wing, celebrity- and gossip-centric blog.
On Thursday, Gawker ran an article stating that they obtained through unspecified (and probably illegal) means
"950 pages of internal audits, financial statements, and private investor letters for 21 cryptically named entities in which Romney had invested — at minimum — more than $10 million as of 2011 (that number is based on the low end of ranges he has disclosed — the true number is almost certainly higher)."
Almost all of them are affiliated with Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney co-founded in 1984 and ran until his departure in 1999 (or 2002, depending on whom you ask). Many of them are offshore funds based in the Cayman Islands.
And way down at the bottom of the article you’ll find the following:
“The documents are exceedingly complicated. We don't pretend to be qualified to decode them in full, which is why we are posting them here for readers to help evaluate — please leave your thoughts in the discussion below [in the comments section].”
They almost seem proud of their lack of journalistic ambition. "We don't know what we're looking at. Anybody want to do our job for us and leave anonymous suppositional comments below?"
With regard to the actual documents themselves, probably the only pertinent question at this point is, ‘So?’
Something similar happened in June 2011. The Huffington Post — yet another left-wing blog — acquired more than 24,000 pages of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's private emails (something I'm sure they also tried very hard to do with Obama's emails). The article about Palin's emails was not actually about her emails, but about the fact that HuffPo was in possession of them. In fact, at the very end of the short piece, these words were written:
I suppose true investigative journalism is too much to ask for these days. Liberal reporters want to find a Republican scandal, but they sure as heck don't want to do the legwork. At least they're now being honest about it.